HomeMy WebLinkAbout020-96 020 --q C2
otsp,NTUCift, TOWN OF NANTUCKET
3 ' tr' APPEALS
. ' , If BOARD OF
• .9poRmo. NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Date : /rn Gv&CL&_ °7 7 , 19 96
To : Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the
Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the
following :
Application No . : 020-96
Owner/Applicant : Berber-r /e /7 / S1 / . '.:_? /)
/ . l ec'_ /7/1 A)2s4-
Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has
this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town
Clerk .
An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws .
Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by
filing an complaint in court within TWENTY ( 20) days after
this day ' s date . Notice of the action with a copy of the
complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given
to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY
( 20 ) days .
_2
Michael J . 0-,Ma a . Chairman
cc : Town Clerk
Planning Board
Building Commissioner
PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME
LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING TO NANTUCKET
ZONING BY-LAW §139-301 ( SPECIAL PERMITS) ; § 139-32I (VARIANCES )
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .
,mauCMeio, TOWN OF NANTUCKET
•
u. = �N BOARD OF APPEALS
Z -x a b
c-9POFA
ond
v NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
Assessor ' s Map 55 . 1 .4 8 East Dover Street
Parcel 27 Deed Ref . 143 , Page 79
Residential Old Historic
At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals ,
held at 1 : 00 P .M. , Friday, March 29 , 1996 , in the Selectmen ' s Meeting
Room, in the Town and County Building, Broad Street , Nantucket ,
Massachusetts , on the Application of HERBERT R . VAN NESS, JR. AND D.
LEE H. VAN NESS, of 8 East Dover Street, Nantucket , MA 02554 , Board
of Appeals File No. 020-96 , the Board made the following Decision:
1 . Applicants are seeking relief by VARIANCE pursuant to Nantucket
Zoning By-Law §139-16A ( Intensity Regulations - minimum lot size) to
validate a lot as it has been reconfigured and that contains a said
to be pre-existing non-conforming single-family dwelling . The Locus is
non-conforming as to minimum lot size , having 2 , 962+ square feet of
area in a district that requires a minimum lot size of 5 , 000 square
feet; as to frontage, having 41 . 35+ feet of frontage along East Dover
Street in a district that requires a minimum frontage of 50 feet; as
to ground cover , having a ground cover ratio in excess of the maximum
ratio of 30% allowed for undersized lots; and as to setbacks , with the
structure being sited closer to the easterly side yard lot line than
five ( 5 ) feet at its closest point and sited at zero feet from the
rear yard lot line at its closest point in a district that requires a
five ( 5 ) foot side and rear yard setback. A garage structure that is
located on the westerly abutting lot , identified as 10 East Dover
Street , encroaches upon the Locus by approximately one ( 1 ) foot .
Applicants have entered into an agreement with the abutters to swap
identical pieces of land to enable the garage structure to be
contained entirely within the abutting property ' s lot lines .
Applicants now seek to validate the subject lot as reconfigured as a
separately marketable and buildable lot . See also BOA Decision in
017-96 .
The premises is located at 8 EAST DOVER STREET, Assessor ' s
Map 55 . 1 . 4 , Parcel 27 , as shown on Deed Reference 143 , Page 79 . The
property is zoned Residential Old Historic .
2 . The Decision is based upon the Application and materials
submitted with it and the testimony and evidence presented at the
Hearing . There were no letters in favor or against . The Planning
Board made
3 . Applicants ' lot contains a single-family dwelling unit that
pre-dates the enactment of the Zoning By-Law in 1972 and thus is a
validly grandfathered structure. A garage structure located on the
abutting lot to the west, and identified as 10 East Dover Street ,
encroaches on Applicants ' lot and extends across the common lot line
by approximately one ( 1 ) foot . This encroachment was discovered durinc_
a transfer of title of the abutting lot in 1986 by a predecessor in
title to the current owner . The Applicants attempted to rectify the
situation by conveying by deed to the then owner of the lot to the
west , that portion of the subject parcel which was located under the
garage as it encroached upon their property. All rights , title and
interest in the land under the garage were relinquished by the
Applicants . Subsequent to that conveyance by deed , the then owner of
10 East Dover Street, sold that lot including that portion of land
under the garage to the current owners . The matter came to light again
during an attempted conveyance of 10 East Dover Street to a new
owner( s ) in 1995 . Since the effective date of the Subdivision Control
Law, it is a matter of law that a new lot can not be created through
conveyance by deed and further requires that a plan be endorsed
pursuant to M.G.L. c . 41 §81-P showing the new lot lines . As both the
subject lot and the abutting lot to the west are validly grandfathered
lots , any change in the lot lines of either lot under Nantukcet Zoning
By-Law § 139-16A would cause the lots to loose said grandfathering and
no longer be in compliance . Further , any alterations or extensions of
any non-conformities would necessitate relief by a grant of a Variance .
4 . Applicants propose to exchange an equal portion of their lot
for an equal portion of the abutting lot to the west (the area under
the garage) in order to allow the abutter to enclose the garage
structure entirely within his lot . The lot area , ground cover and
frontage of each lot will remain essentially unchanged . Relief to
validate the abutting lot at 10 East Dover Street by Variance was
granted in Board of Appeals Decision 017-96 at a Public Hearing held
on Friday , March 8 , 1996 .
5 . The Board found in Decision 017-96 that the intrusion of the
garage into the subject lot was diminimous in nature and that the
siting of the garage was unique to that lot and said intrusion had
existed since a time before the enactment of 1972 Zoning . Having
granted relief by Variance for the abutting lot to the west to
validate the lot lines as reconfigured the Board now finds that the
same relief could be granted to validate the subject lot as
reconfigured on the same grounds and further owing to circumstances
relating to the soil conditions , shape or topography of such land or
structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not
affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located , a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Zoning By-Law would
involve substantial hardship , financial or otherwise, to the
Applicants , and the desirable relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-Law.
6 . Accordingly, by a vote of
the Board GRANTS
the requested VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-16A to
validate the lot as reconfigured and shown on a plan drawn by Charles
W. Hart Associates , dated March 5 , 1996 attached hereto and marked as
abutting lot to the west , and identified as 10 East Dover Street,
encroaches on Applicants ' lot and extends across the common lot line
by approximately one ( 1 ) foot . This encroachment was discovered dur:.ng
a transfer of title of the abutting lot in 1986 by a predecessor in
title to the current owner . The Applicants attempted to rectify the
situation by conveying by deed to the then owner of the lot to the
west , that portion of the subject parcel which was located under the
garage as it encroached upon their property . All rights, title and
interest in the land under the garage were relinquished by the
Applicants . Subsequent to that conveyance by deed , the then owner of
10 East Dover Street, sold that lot including that portion of land
under the garage to the current owners . The matter came to light again
during an attempted conveyance of 10 East Dover Street to a new
owner( s ) in 1995 . Since the effective date of the Subdivision Control
Law, it is a matter of law that a new lot can not be created through
conveyance by deed and further requires that a plan be endorsed
pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41 §81-P showing the new lot lines . As both the
subject lot and the abutting lot to the west are validly grandfathered
lots, any change in the lot lines of either lot under Nantukcet Zon: ng
By-Law §139-16A would cause the lots to loose said grandfathering a:
no longer be in compliance . Further, any alterations or extensions of
any non-conformities would necessitate relief by a grant of a Variance .
4 . Applicants propose to exchange an equal portion of their lot
for an equal portion of the abutting lot to the west (the area under
the garage) in order to allow the abutter to enclose the garage
structure entirely within his lot . The lot area , ground cover and
frontage of each lot will remain essentially unchanged . Relief to
validate the abutting lot at 10 East Dover Street by Variance was
granted in Board of Appeals Decision 017-96 at a Public Hearing held
on Friday , March 8 , 1996 .
5 . The Board found in Decision 017 -96 that the intrusion of the
garage into the subject lot was diminimous in nature and that the
siting of the garage was unique to that lot and said intrusion had
existed Since a time before the enactment of 1972 Zoning. Having
granted relief by Variance for the abutting lot to the west to
validate the lot lines as reconfigured the Board now finds that the
same relief could be granted to validate the subject lot as
reconfigured on the same grounds and further owing to circumstances
relating to the soil conditions , shape or topography of such land or
structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not
affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Zoning By-Law would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
Applicants , and the desirable relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-Law .
6 Accordingly, by a vote of f"ou,"' G`/9 Ir,-7<lact CC1Ji% byrkc Sewz,1S,
2 . I a/ oP 1an9eloaq Z7) - one- Cr) 4 aoSe ' C& lag) the Board GRANTS
the requested VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-16A to
validate the lot as reconfigured and shown on a plan drawn by Charles
W. Hart AssocipiV ated March 5 , 1996 attached hereto and marked as
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
NANTUCKET, MA 02554
APR 0 9 1996
TIME: - _.
t t d -._ /LI�/ t182 13`>t flNbbN 21 :21 BEE T-6t3-6dU
Exhibit "A" subject to the following condition :
The lot shall be afforded all the rights of a lot
that is validly grandfathered subject to the terms
of Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-33 as may be
amended from time to time .
Dated : March 27 1996
`lopvio2c0-6
1 ,hcJc t fth'(Irbnms
V\)1? ,
co11ia ' p. U I • -
/
�Add
/ 1ii� 1aer cers lQ �U —
\t,
Haney rens
Aimi:94&,---
A-n o 5-. 13a/as
RECEIVED
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Fins C^'4iriq
MAR 2 9 1996
-
,
1.4
I - - ,--
.___ . _CO•`7)..9 2' „.C_C.` .2:0 „ Z 0 ,S' -->—
- •,-,
. .
c--
. • , - c,, - ' - , ., .
. 1 --• . . . , --,•••771
- -DI
- - , ...„, . ,,,i. -:,•&-R_.,--0' 1...._
• . -—4
i .
. .
i-- .
,,j_L ■•• v) `•4 (,(•.,
— --9
,\
(r) , ' ., •-..y_c-_-. 8? —, ! --0
\,..
t nie — --,
. : -
(---0 - --- cq I ..„
L
1,,-,
v) 0,-)
• .
Os: , ■
c' Lk cr)-': A-1 . 2c.- ,-- ,, ,-, • 2-,.-. ',>
•, (.,, \,\,z i-, u> -, LTh c,
,ki - f•,. -.. ,...0 -,
, .'c ,, ■ k"k ,.• ,
1 H.s. ..\..9
)
.- • ' ''C'. -;' 1 -0.2 ,r,
- c.".9_'„ei—.-_—0---..--..•
-.- ,--.-------------..-----—
m•su..s- ,
z
' 97
. , ., r 9•c
p:- .
IN i
. ...
i- _',, _< ,
. ,
N, '<
0 ",:-.4-Th K: - '. - t•.
(0 I.: ,-.,, 00c•.4(2, 0 .
, '.,/ s 1-•,(-)Qce a -----‘ - - . . _ ?-
N --
. ' . ..: ...
a
. . „
, .
. .
N. 0 j 0 El
"i) i k ', •
r) ?' •. Q Li -
C) . ■•
. i ....‘,
tli . . i,'; • ; ,
- •4
CC-) 0
1 0 , G 1- 0
',) ,r)
I • ., C,) ,i, '
i ' '-i ''• L4‘ "' (:"3 N
i----- ' • .... -T' ',-) (A)
• .
• ,
I '.
,.-.. ; :
,
. .
. ,..... .